If Palin Were Nominated, Would You Vote for Obama?

I have a thought experiment for the (Country-/Yacht-/Racquet-/Men’s-) Club Republicans:  If Sarah Palin were the Republican Party nominee for President in 2008, would you:

1. Vote for a third-party candidate to tangibly lodge your disapproval (donations to the Perot Presidential Library will be forwarded to the Clinton Presidential Library, so you needn’t question your credit card statement)?
2. Withhold your vote to tacitly lodge your disapproval?
3. Vote for Junior?

A RINO with a remaining shred of integrity would pick 3, the other choices being merely the back door equivalent.  That way, you’d at least show the character to accept joint responsibility for the blood that is on the hands of the Surrendocrats, and the rest of us would know to ignore your insincere hand wringing about your grandchildren’s posterity.

Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) – A Useful Forensic Tool for Useful Idiot Identification

One of the phenomena I find revealing is the visceral contempt shown Sarah Palin by some of my circle of correspondents (who would undoubtedly prefer to have themselves thought of as Conservatives).

The common thread in all of the derision is a palpably elitist strain, including unsupported judgments of stupidity, dismissal of any and all executive experience based on it having been gained in Alaska, snobbish discounting of a degree from the University of Idaho, and guilt by association with supposedly inbred hayseed “Wal-Mart shopper” types.  This brings to mind nothing more than the reception by Club Republicans to Ronald Reagan that I witnessed first-hand in Omaha during the 1964 Presidential campaign (this is not to anoint Mrs. Palin as the reincarnation of the Gipper, but merely to characterize prototypic behavior).

This behavior, when displayed, can be considered a service to those of us who want to restore and grow American Conservative ordered liberty in our society.  The last thing we need to do is tolerate the useful idiocy of these deranged sorts.  In addition to my knowing what these sorts are—useful idiot enablers of Junior Obowma, I know what they are not—American Conservatives.  Their terminal PDS allows more thoughtful people to relegate this sort to the same category as the radicals now attempting to destroy the last best hope of mankind on earth.

Bowrack Obowma

I don’t know how much longer the grinning idiot from Plain is going to tolerate Junior’s attempts to wrest the trophy as Worst President in 100 Years, but his inevitable effort will no doubt be sickening in its craven Quisling extreme.

Good Mahometans Are The Problem

When I have spoken to individuals and groups on the history of interaction between Western Civilization and the followers of the Prophet Mohammed, the conversation inevitably tends toward consternation that “good” Muslims don’t stand up and confront the “radicals” whom they see as perverting the “religion of peace” as they wage jihad.  One of the few of my friends who has no reservations in speaking his mind on such matters counters that “there are no good ones.”  While I empathize with his blanket condemnation of a group of people who consider the only choices for an Infidel to be conversion, dhimmitude, or death, I believe we need to be more aggressive in facing down the knee jerk political correctness that the Fort Hood terrorist attack has exposed.  Dismissing the offending group outright will not temper their deadly behavior.

Some time after the Iran hostage taking and before the first World Trade Center bombing, I came to the conclusion that I had a civic responsibility to inform myself about Mohammedans (I use this term, despite Wikipedia telling me it is now another source of offense for the comically thin-skinned followers of the Prophet).  While it is repeatedly said that one cannot fathom the Koran if read in other than Arabic (funny, that doesn’t seem to stop Indonesians, Pakistanis, Africans, Malaysians, etc. from being counted among the faithful), I sought out and read English language translations of the “holy” book, as well as making a serious effort at reading the Hadith and Sunnah.  I could come to but one conclusion from all of this tedious research:  my friend is wrong—there are “good” Muslims and they are the ones waging Jihad.  One of the reasons that the jihadis have no compunction in slaughtering mostly fellow Muslims when they wreak their havoc in their home countries is that the Koran makes it clear that those not waging jihad are only slightly less repugnant than an Infidel.

This leaves a small point to concede to apologists for “good” Muslims.  There are many people adhering to Islam who are peaceful, raising good children, hard-working, and honest.  I would call them good people adhering to Islam badly, not “good” Muslims.  There is no hope to be held out that these people will ever stand up to the jihadis and “take back” Islam from the “radicals” because they know (even if we won’t admit it) that they will be mowed down as quickly as any Infidel if they show such apostate tendencies.  And I must concede that the jihadis are nothing if not consistent in their adherence to Islam by taking such a stand.

I fear that the American character finds the concept of absolute and eternal intolerance of others (the essence of Mohammedism) so alien that they will never be able to bring themselves to believe it is lodged in the soul of Islam.  Thus, it will take a slaughter much worse than Fort Hood or 9/11 before there is any hope of action.  Even then, it will be an existential survival reaction, not an awakening to the nature of the threat source.  I pray none reading (or writing) this will be victims of this cultural blind spot when the inevitable happens.